Re: [rtcweb] Plan for MTI video codec?

"DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com> Fri, 17 October 2014 11:31 UTC

Return-Path: <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D9271AC3E0 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 04:31:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rrGKl2DAI0_x for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 04:31:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-fr.alcatel-lucent.com (fr-hpida-esg-02.alcatel-lucent.com [135.245.210.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A95C1AC3D9 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 04:31:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.239.2.42]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id 08299A1578D8C; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 11:30:58 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from FR712WXCHHUB03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr712wxchhub03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.74]) by fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id s9HBUwnV020233 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 17 Oct 2014 13:30:58 +0200
Received: from FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.7.25]) by FR712WXCHHUB03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.74]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 13:30:58 +0200
From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>, "Makaraju, Maridi Raju (Raju)" <Raju.Makaraju@alcatel-lucent.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Plan for MTI video codec?
Thread-Index: AQHP6Yadl2Qsv7sEAECBFDAOBE1CspwzG5WAgAAJmQCAAAq1AIAAAsUAgAAA8wCAAPQ2oA==
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 11:30:58 +0000
Message-ID: <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B261266@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <CAGTXFp-HVJDwd86207PNM2QVYO4Z_K4WF-KarnRs1fb7nvy4zA@mail.gmail.com> <CA+9kkMDfES8gpi0-PTXpCnQHjFYUSF2r44TNzH5B4UfDGo8PtA@mail.gmail.com> <CAGTXFp8O-7ACksk3v3f=KjCkcDb4e8G=t-e=EJ1503vt7TkpCQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAGTXFp867AMUZ_fEKxG9uAoR1H1AirVHi3-ayJ=KTQk9L+C7+g@mail.gmail.com> <CA+9kkMAZufR7gUrwkS7Tf5GOfg+ZtsZWGcn-8YLCvnmYnTgfFw@mail.gmail.com> <544035DE.8000606@matthew.at> <CABkgnnUNgWaauS6-nZ5fcExjsMPy4ZGPXaahduzA39=iqh9+fQ@mail.gmail.com> <D5D11F2B-9E32-4932-A601-F1D7FD50C706@gmail.com> <E36D1A4AE0B6AA4091F1728D584A6AD2400329E2@fmsmsx118.amr.corp.intel.com> <E1FE4C082A89A246A11D7F32A95A17828E5E2BF9@US70UWXCHMBA02.zam.alcatel-lucent.com> <CAD5OKxsANa4dyWgyh4haN8Arhoqwf_H+5WxYrDBzHudFK5Fx9w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD5OKxsANa4dyWgyh4haN8Arhoqwf_H+5WxYrDBzHudFK5Fx9w@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.41]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B261266FR712WXCHMBA11zeu_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/fVwCn3dlzUYs0sXjJilb5Ulz_gg
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Plan for MTI video codec?
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 11:31:06 -0000

What I am seeing is a better awareness of APIs for accessing embedded codec hardware in the client, and independently of any MTI codec discussion, I think the codec document should address the existing of these, and how they might be used. At least it should not ignore the issue entirely.

But I do agree that I do not really want an MTI codec discussion (unless we find a late night bar to do it in).

Keith

________________________________
From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Roman Shpount
Sent: 16 October 2014 23:54
To: Makaraju, Maridi Raju (Raju)
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Plan for MTI video codec?

+1 as well. There is nothing of consequence that changed since this discussion happened last time, so there is no possibility for the decision.

_____________
Roman Shpount

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 6:50 PM, Makaraju, Maridi Raju (Raju) <Raju.Makaraju@alcatel-lucent.com<mailto:Raju.Makaraju@alcatel-lucent.com>> wrote:
+ 1

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org>] On Behalf Of Cavigioli, Chris
> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 5:41 PM
> To: Bernard Aboba; Martin Thomson
> Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Plan for MTI video codec?
>
> I completely agree.  MTI is wasting time, given we know the industry is
> split between H.xxx and VPxxx ... and given we know that H.264/VP8 will
> become H.265/VP9 rapidly ... we need to ensure WebRTC works with various
> codecs and guide the industry towards VP8, H.264, VP9, H.265 (not some other
> variant).  There will be some vendors who support both formats and some who
> don't.
> -chris
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org>] On Behalf Of Bernard Aboba
> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 3:03 PM
> To: Martin Thomson
> Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Plan for MTI video codec?
>
> One thing we could do instead of wasting time on MTI is to actually make
> progress on Sections 4.2 - 4.4 of draft-IETF-RTCWEB-video, so we could
> actually interoperate regardless of the codec.
>
>
>
> > On Oct 16, 2014, at 2:28 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com<mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> >
> >> On 16 October 2014 14:17, Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at<mailto:matthew@matthew.at>> wrote:
> >> And that's because something substantive has changed, or simply
> >> because wasting the WG time on this again is more entertaining than
> >> actually finishing a specification that can be independently
> >> implemented by all browser vendors? (A specification that we are
> >> nowhere near having, as far as I can tell)
> >
> > Personally, I've found the reprieve from this fight refreshing.  And
> > it would appear that we've made some real progress as a result.  I'd
> > suggest that if we don't have new information, we continue to spend
> > our time productively.  If we can't find topics to occupy our meeting
> > agenda time, then maybe we can free an agenda slot.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rtcweb mailing list
> > rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb